GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon Concepts

[Richard Pyle]

What you get back depends on who you call, what you ask for, and how much
linking has already been established.

Minimally, the "data" for GUID 8 would include the NameString "Xea bus", and
either textual citation metadata or a ref-GUID pointing to the documentation
instance of "Pyle 2005" (i.e., #1 in your list below).  Ideally, it would
also include locater information (e.g., page numbers) for finding where,
within the documentation instance "Pyle 2005", you can find the
appearance(s) of the NameString "Xea bus" (or its "explicitly implied"
equivalent of "X. bus"). There may be various other bits and pieces of
direct data and/or metadata attached directly to GUID 8, depending on
whether the data provider recognizes it as a surrogate representation of a
basionym, new combination, TaxonConcept, whatever -- but the "true"
definition of GUID 8 is simply the appearance of the NameString "Xea bus"
within the documentation instance of "Pyle 2005".

If the data provider that you called for GUID 8 had established full
INTRA-documentation nomenclatural cross-links, then you might also get:

- A Link of nomenclatrual type "is combined with" to GUID 7.
- Links of nomenclatural type "is senior synonym of" to GUIDs 9, 10 & 11.

If the data provider that you called for GUID 8 had established
INTER-documentation nomenclatural cross-links, then you might also get:

- A link of nomenclatural type "has basionym" to GUID 2.
- If a plant, also a link of nomnclatural type "is authored combination" to
GUID 5.

If the data provider that you called for GUID 8 also dealt in concepts, you
might also have:

- Links of Concept type "includes" to GUIDs 9, 10 & 11.
- Links of Concept type "includes" to GUIDs 2, 3 & 5.
- A Link of Concept Type "is included in" to GUID 7 (maybe?? or would this
be "is child of"?)

And there may be other intra-GUID cross-links established as well.  But the
point is, the data attached directly to GUID 8 only intrinsically represents
the NameString (along with its "explicitly implied" equivalents), and a
reference to a documentation instance, and perhaps some other attributes
tied directly to the appearance of that name within that documentation
instance (e.g. page numbers).  All the rest is secondary contextual linking
among other GUID-bearing NameUsage instances, as established by various data
providers.

The structure is appealing because it *can* fit nicely into TCS (e.g.,
distinguishing nomenclatual links that would be embedded within a TCS
<TaxonName> instance, vs. concept links that would be enumerated within
TaxonConcept/TaxonRelationships) -- however, it is broader than simply
assigning GUIDs to TaxonConcept instances, because not all Usage instances
rise to the level of "defined concept" (sensu Jessie). Rather, a *subset* of
NameUsage instances would represent TaxonConcept instances -- just as a
subset of TaxonConcept instances would represent "Original Concepts"
(=original descriptions, =basionyms &  New Combinations).

I agree that it is suboptimal to use these sorts of surrogate GUIDs -- but
it seems we had already begun to embrace the "[TaxonName] SEC [Publication]"
interesection as a surrogate identifier ("handle") to a TaxonConcept -- so
I'm only taking the same idea one step further.

Let me know how else I might clarify.

Aloha,
Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: Taxonomic Databases Working Group GUID Project
[mailto:TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU]On Behalf Of Roger Hyam
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 1:19 PM
To: TDWG-GUID at LISTSERV.NHM.KU.EDU
Subject: Re: GUIDs for Taxon Names and Taxon Concepts


Hi Rich,

If I call the GUID for 8 I presume I get back a data object of some kind
that contains:

1. A literature ref field that contains a string representation of a
citation of Pyle 2005 and or a GUID that points off to get more information
about the publication.

2. A  GUID that points to the data object containing data about Xea ba
(Smith 1995) Jones 2000 - as depicted here (by Pyle 2005) - i.e. the GUID
for 9

3. A GUID that points to the data object containing stuff about Aus bus
Smith 1995 - as depicted here (by Pyle 2005) - i.e. the GUID for 10.

4. A GUID that points to the data object containing stuff about Aus cus
Smith 1995 - as depicted here (by Pyle 2005) - i.e. the GUID for 11.

This data structure is beginning to look a lot like a TaxonConcept to me but
then I see the world through TCS glasses :)  Is this wrong?

What would I get back that would be materially different to this?

All the best,

Roger




Richard Pyle wrote:
Thanks, Yde -- I should have included the junior synonym example in my
original list, so I'm glad you raised it.

Let me slightly modify your list (I've stripped the name authorships to make
it less cluttered -- we assume no homonyms here -- and "ba" is the feminine
form of "bus"):

1. Aus, as it appears in Smith 1995
2. Aus bus, as it appears in Smith 1995
3. Aus cus, as it appears in Smith 1995
4. Xea, as it appears in Jones 2000
5. Xea ba, as it appears in Jones 2000
6. Aus, as it appears in Pyle 2005
7. Xea, as it appears in Pyle 2005
8. Xea bus, as it appears in Pyle 2005
9.   = Xea ba (Smith 1995) Jones 2000
10.  = Aus bus Smith 1995
11.  = Aus cus Smith 1995

The last 3 are "as they appear in Pyle 2005").

Among the three implied junior synonyms (#s 9, 10 & 11), there are several
types:

- #9 is the same basionym, same combination, different epithet spelling.

- #10 is the same basionym, same epithet spelling, different combination.

- #11 is a different basionym.

I see these as three different classes of "synonyms", and I do not believe
that we need to enumerate these (and other) classes of synonyms before we
can implement a GUID system for taxon objects.

Applying the NameUsage instance paradigm as I have described it to this
case, #s 1-7 would each get a distinct GUID. As for 8-11, because there are
four distinct NameStrings within one documentation instance (Pyle 2005) --
four GUIDs would be assigned.

There are various degrees of ambiguity as to what nomenclatural and Concept
links could/would/should be established among these nine GUID-represented
objects (some are obvious, and some may not be obvious), but at least there
is no ambiguity about what objects should have a GUID assigned to them.

Aloha,
Rich




--

-------------------------------------
 Roger Hyam
 Technical Architect
 Taxonomic Databases Working Group
-------------------------------------
 http://www.tdwg.org
 roger at tdwg.org
 +44 1578 722782
-------------------------------------